William wrote:
If this was the only similar case in the pipeline then fair enough. But with such an egregious violation that seems surprising. Again, if it was the only such case, fair enough. But otherwise why pick this one which can be eliminated on a technicality?
Presumably any other similar action now has to start all over again...
I don't believe there are other cases in the pipeline, but feelers are out for a test case.
Upon further reflection, I don't actually disagree with the gist of the article theat John posted, or with the several other reasons that this wasn't the right test case. Another good reason discussed in a Washington Post article I believe, was that this case didn't really percolate through the system the way most Supreme Court cases do and as such hasn't really been discussed thoroughly.
Another reason is that an awful lot of Americans just don't get "separation of church and state" and are aghast at the idea that the government shouldn't be able to endorse religion. It might be easier to live with the pledge and other minor violations than it would be to live with the backlash caused by banning them.
For the time being anyway.
-- Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
